Case Updates

The judge preferred the evidence of the Claimant's expert because of the Defendant's expert’s approach to his task as expert, his confusion over the proper approach to what prior art was and was not in the common general knowledge, the number of assertions he made which he was forced to resile from as incorrect, and his failure to acknowledge a key fact.

The judge found that the forensic accounting expert’s approach of forming an opinion as to the value of the Company, then carrying out a detailed calculation and only if it matches his initial opinion accepting it, undermined the credibility and reliability of his opinion as to the value of the Company.

The Appellant was given permission to change neurology experts after the judge found that the application was not so late as to be prejudicial to the Respondents, and that the Appellant was not engaging in expert shopping.

The judge found that the evidence of the claimants' psychological expert fell well below the standard to be expected of a competent expert witness, both as to form and as to substance.

Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB)

The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert witness, who was overburdened with work, had made errors in his examination of the forensic material and closed his mind to possible or probable accidental causes for the injuries identified. 

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v G [2024] EWHC 2200 (Fam) 

The defendant’s spinal cord injury expert in this case agreed early on in his cross-examination that he had lost all objectivity and independence in the case, while the defendant’s physiotherapy and accommodation experts were criticised by the judge for adopting more partisan approaches in their later evidence.

The judge found that it was without justification and entirely unecessary for an expert to question the opposing expert's professionalism and motives in selecting evidence, noting that this approach was unhelpful for the tribunal. 

The medico-legal expert in this personal injury claim was urged by the judge to seek further training after he made all of the three most common compliance errors which the EWI sees in expert reports.

Hamed v. Ministry of Justice (County Court in Cambridge – 7th June 2024)

An expert is entitled to revise his or her opinion in light of a judge's finding as to what is or is not required in order to comply with particular regulations or equivalent regulatory standards.

The judge found that an expert witness's anlaysis became incoherent because he failed from the outset to take into adequate account the NICE recommendations.